Fact Check: Trump's attacks on judges have gone largely unchallenged by the Supreme Court.

Published June 30, 2025

•By

VERDICT

Partially True

# Fact Check: "Trump's attacks on judges have gone largely unchallenged by the Supreme Court." ## What We Know The claim that "Trump's attacks on jud...

Fact Check: "Trump's attacks on judges have gone largely unchallenged by the Supreme Court."

What We Know

The claim that "Trump's attacks on judges have gone largely unchallenged by the Supreme Court" suggests a lack of judicial response to President Trump's criticisms of the judiciary. Throughout his presidency, Trump has frequently criticized judges who ruled against his policies, labeling their decisions as "judicial tyranny" and "a judicial coup" (source-2). Despite these attacks, the Supreme Court has not consistently intervened to counter Trump's rhetoric or actions against the judiciary.

In recent rulings, the Supreme Court has upheld some of Trump's policies while also allowing lower court decisions that have blocked various executive actions (source-3, source-4). For instance, the Court has been involved in cases that challenge Trump's executive orders, but it has not directly addressed his public attacks on judges.

Analysis

The Supreme Court's response to Trump's attacks on judges can be viewed through two lenses: the Court's rulings on specific cases and its broader stance on judicial independence. While the Court has ruled in favor of Trump in some instances, it has also allowed lower court rulings that have blocked his initiatives, indicating a complex relationship rather than a straightforward endorsement of Trump's views (source-5, source-7).

Critically, the sources discussing Trump's attacks highlight a strategic effort to undermine confidence in the judiciary, suggesting that the attacks have been more about political posturing than legal challenges (source-2). The Supreme Court's lack of direct engagement with Trump's rhetoric may reflect a reluctance to enter the political fray or validate his claims against the judiciary.

Additionally, the historical context of presidential criticism of the judiciary shows that Trump's approach is not unprecedented, but his personalized attacks mark a significant departure from traditional norms (source-2). This suggests that while the Supreme Court may not have directly challenged Trump's rhetoric, it is also not entirely passive in its judicial role.

Conclusion

The claim that "Trump's attacks on judges have gone largely unchallenged by the Supreme Court" is Partially True. While the Supreme Court has not directly addressed Trump's public criticisms of judges, it has also not fully endorsed his views. The Court's rulings reflect a complex interplay of support and opposition to Trump's policies, indicating that the relationship between the judiciary and the executive is nuanced rather than one-sided.

Sources

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:

"Coffee helps you live longer"

✓100% Free

✓No Registration

✓Instant Results